| page 1 | page 2 | page 3 |
The following is a discussion of Lee Oswald's early discharge from the Marines, taken from the newsgroup alt.assassination.jfk
From: "James K. Olmstead" <Thpa2d@onecom.com>
Newsgroups: alt.assassination.jfk
Subject: The "early out" of Oswald
Date: 10 Oct 2004 15:05:47 -0400
[..]
The first endorsement dated August 19, 1959, on "Pfc OSWALD's ltr of 17 August 1959",
made by J.W. Poindexter was sent forward indicating approval for "DEPENDENCY DISCHARGE".
The term "Hardship Discharge" does not actually apply to Oswald except in general terms, the
request was made to take care of his mother, who is now a "dependent", since her July request for
dependency. The "Hardship" was the need for some family member to takecare of Mrs. Oswald.
Poindexter uses the term "hardship" to discribe the depenedency considering that the funds she will
recieve, while Oswald is in service, will "not sufficiently alleviate this situation".
The ironic element here is that she will be receiving $91.30 from Oswald, while he is in
service. Once he seperates, she will have nothing coming in from Oswald, nor does he have a job
waiting for him that would replace this $91.30 available while he is still in service. If Oswald
continued to send the "D" allotment of $40. Mrs Oswald would have
$131. 30 each month coming in that would cover the majority of her listed expenses.
Now for the legal conflict in consideration of this endorsement. Some of the data supplied to
Poindexter is false. First consideration:
"a. Pfc OSWALD'S EOS is 23 October, 1962"
The date based on his "bad time" (days in the brig) was offically listed in his service
record as "8 December, 1962". This is the date his military obligation is over. It is
based on his enlistment date and adding 6 years. (Conflict on this enlistment date later).
The problem is that this also indicates that Oswald's ETS is 23 October, 1959, only 65
days away. Which when leave time available is consider, Lee has less then 45 days of
service at the time the application is made for seperation. The ETS however is 8 Dec, 1959 not 23
October, 1959. This is 105 days away from the application......outside of
the 90 day window.
The only dependency "evidence" provided Poindexter is the "D allotment" of $40
of which the first payment was made in August of 1959. This was money send by
Oswald out of his pay.
Moving on........
The second endorsement is of 24 August,1959, the third is of 26 August, 1959 both being approved.
The fourth endorsement, 28 August, 1959, shows additional conflict of the record. It shows Oswald's
ETS as 7 December, 1959. This the last day of Oswald "active duty". Which is one day prior to the
8 December, 1959 adjusted "offical" ETS and is the proper date for release according to
regulations. The fourth endorsement authorizes "Dependency Discharge".
All of these above endorsements are made in August. The key documents of the supporting evidence to
show and confirm "hardship" are not SUBMITTED or even made until after September when the discharge
was given.
More to follow
jko
From: "clark wilkins" <clwilkins@prodigy.net>
Newsgroups: alt.assassination.jfk
Subject: Re: The "early out" of Oswald
..[]
Oswald's hurry to speed up his entry into the USSR coincided with the
American Exposition in Moscow in 1959, which included Richard Nixon's
kitchen debate on July 24, 1959 and Kruschev's visit to the US in the
following September.
This followed the June 9, 1959 launching of the USS George Washington, the
first submarine to carry ballistic missiles. Kruschev saw this as a threat
and made it clear to Nixon that war was now out of the question and declared
his country was the "greater" military power but that he wanted to negotiate
the removal of US bases from nearby foreign countries (The US had some 60
Jupiter missiles in Italy and Turkey). Nixon, meanwhile, was interested in
promoting the free exchange of ideas - particularly technology. They used
television technology as the example (Oswald would go to work for a radio
factory).
Thus, as of July 24, 1959, the USSR was interested in reducing the ABM
threat of the US and the US was interested in the "free sharing" of ideas
(concerning, as we shallsee, space programs). Krushev agreed to a reciprocal
visit to the US.
Kruschev and Oswald passed by each other in September, headed in opposite
directions to each other's country's.
In December 1959, the US officially approached the USSR offering space
'cooperation'.
In December, 1959, Lee Harvey Oswald was granted a one year visa to the
USSR.
::Clark::
[..]
"clark wilkins" <clwilkins@prodigy.net> wrote in message
news:10mkcarlucpqpf3@corp.supernews.com...
>
> "James K. Olmstead" <Thpa2d@onecom.com> wrote in message
> news:41696986@mcadams.posc.mu.edu...
> > The first endorsement dated August 19, 1959, on "Pfc OSWALD's ltr of 17
> August 1959",
> > made by J.W. Poindexter was sent forward indicating approval for
> "DEPENDENCY DISCHARGE".
> >
> > The term "Hardship Discharge" does not actually apply to Oswald except
in
> general terms, the
> > request was made to take care of his mother, who is now a "dependent",
> since her July request for
> > dependency.
Actually, I believe Lee made this request on July 20 and not his mother.
Correct?
> > The "Hardship" was the need for some family member to
> takecare of Mrs. Oswald.
John Pic was also able to send money.
> > Poindexter uses the term "hardship" to discribe the depenedency
> considering that the funds she will
> > recieve, while Oswald is in service, will "not sufficiently alleviate
this
> situation".
Except John Pic is also in the service and also able to send funds.
But he didn't.
> >
> > The ironic element here is that she will be receiving $91.30 from
Oswald,
> while he is in
> > service. Once he seperates, she will have nothing coming in from Oswald,
> nor does he have a job
> > waiting for him that would replace this $91.30 available while he is
still
> in service.
Actually there may be irony in Oswald's lack of concern for his mother but
I think even the LNer's will agree that Lee's early discharge request was
to speed up his entry into the USSR and not to help his mother.
If we note Lee's scheduled discharge date, December 8(?), 1959, we find
that the US planned approach for "free sharing of ideas" with the USSR is
timed to coincide with Oswald's discharge.
And, sure enough, the Russians did not give Lee a visa until late
December, 1959 - even though he arrived early.
He was made to "sit on ice" at his Moscow hotel until then.
> > If Oswald
> > continued to send the "D" allotment of $40. Mrs Oswald would have
> > $131. 30 each month coming in that would cover the majority of her
listed
> expenses.
And if John Pic sent the same she would have had $ 171.30 each month.
> >
> > Now for the legal conflict in consideration of this endorsement. Some
of
> the data supplied to
> > Poindexter is false. First consideration:
> >
> > "a. Pfc OSWALD'S EOS is 23 October, 1962"
> >
> > The date based on his "bad time" (days in the brig) was offically listed
> in his service
> > record as "8 December, 1962". This is the date his military obligation
is
> over. It is
> > based on his enlistment date and adding 6 years. (Conflict on this
> enlistment date later).
The effect of the "error" is to make it appear that Lee is only seeking a
thirty day early discharge.
> >
> > The problem is that this also indicates that Oswald's ETS is 23 October,
> 1959, only 65
> > days away. Which when leave time available is consider, Lee has less
then
> 45 days of
> > service at the time the application is made for seperation. The ETS
> however is 8 Dec, 1959 not 23
> > October, 1959. This is 105 days away from the application......outside
of
> > the 90 day window.
What is the "90 day window"?
> >
> > The only dependency "evidence" provided Poindexter is the "D allotment"
> of $40
> > of which the first payment was made in August of 1959. This was money
> send by
> > Oswald out of his pay.
On August 17, 1959 Lee presented his Request for Dependancy Discharge.
Included with it was the following:
1) 21 July, 1959 Dr. Hamilton Letter stating Mrs. Oswald was first seen 20
Feb, 1959 and last seen on the 25th of May, 1959. The letter is addressed
"To Whom it may concern". Presumably it was included with the following:
2) 22 July, 1959 Spurlock, Scattman and Jacobs, law firm letter to inform
anyone concerned that Mrs. Oswald is having difficulty in delay with her
Workman's Compensation Benifits claim.
3) 24 July, 1959 Mrs. Knight Affidavit
Gladys Johnson, NP
4) 24 July, 1959 Mrs. Childs Affidavit
Ima Hamilton, NP
5) 28 July, 1959 Mrs. Oswald Affidavit
Gladys Johnson, NP
6) 31 July, 1959 Major R. A. Cooley, Dept of USN letter to Mrs. Oswald
informimg her of Lee's request for the "Q" allotment, sending her the form
needed to be filled out. Mrs. Oswald, filled out the form and sent it out
on the 7th of August, 1959. NP's name can not be read.
The above information was received by Admiral Pointdexter who recommended
approval of the discharge request on August 19, 1959 - Or just two days
after Lee Harvey Oswald submitted it.
> >
> > Moving on........
The overlooked conclusion is that Lee and his mother had been working
together since July 20 to put together this August 17 application.
Because, otherwise, the affidavits she collected were unnecessary to Lee
filing
None of the previous letters and affidavits were required for his 20 July,
1959 Request for a Allowance for Dependents. Therefore, there was never
any plan to send her money. The July 20 request was meant as a first
necessary step for the August 17 request.
> >
> > The second endorsement is of 24 August,1959, the third is of 26 August,
> 1959 both being approved.
> >
> > The fourth endorsement, 28 August, 1959, shows additional conflict of
the
> record. It shows Oswald's
> > ETS as 7 December, 1959. This the last day of Oswald "active duty".
Which
> is one day prior to the
> > 8 December, 1959 adjusted "offical" ETS and is the proper date for
release
> according to
> > regulations. The fourth endorsement authorizes "Dependency Discharge".
Lee is approved in 11 days for a dependency discharge.
> >
> > All of these above endorsements are made in August. The key documents of
> the supporting evidence to
> > show and confirm "hardship" are not SUBMITTED or even made until after
> September when the discharge
> > was given.
???
I show all of Mrs. Oswald's affidavits were made in July - not September.
> >
> > More to follow
> >
> > jko
>
>
>
> Oswald's hurry to speed up his entry into the USSR coincided with the
> American Exposition in Moscow in 1959, which included Richard Nixon's
> kitchen debate on July 24, 1959 and Kruschev's visit to the US in the
> following September.
>
> This followed the June 9, 1959 launching of the USS George Washington, the
> first submarine to carry ballistic missiles. Kruschev saw this as a threat
> and made it clear to Nixon that war was now out of the question and declared
> his country was the "greater" military power but that he wanted to negotiate
> the removal of US bases from nearby foreign countries (The US had some 60
> Jupiter missiles in Italy and Turkey). Nixon, meanwhile, was interested in
> promoting the free exchange of ideas - particularly technology. They used
> television technology as the example (Oswald would go to work for a radio
> factory).
>
> Thus, as of July 24, 1959, the USSR was interested in reducing the ABM
> threat of the US and the US was interested in the "free sharing" of ideas
> (concerning, as we shall see, space programs). Krushev agreed to a reciprocal
> visit to the US.
>
> Kruschev and Oswald passed by each other in September, headed in opposite
> directions to each other's country's.
>
> In December 1959, the US officially approached the USSR offering space
> 'cooperation'.
>
> In December, 1959, Lee Harvey Oswald was granted a one year visa to the
> USSR.
>From the above, we see that Lee's request for early dependency discharge
did not speed up his ability to enter the USSR and obtain a one year
Soviet visa. He was still "put on ice" at his hotel and made to wait. Wait
for what? The US delegation to arrive offering to share technology as a
trade for getting him in? We see the delegation's arrival was timed (by
intention or by coincidence) to coincide with Oswald's discharge, which
would have placed him in the USSR in late December, just in time to be
granted his temporary Soviet visa - as he historically was.
If the delegation's arrival in December, 1959 was deliberately timed to
coincide with Oswald's arrival then something happened that required Lee
to arrive earlier than planned. There is nothing in Oswald's December
discharge date that would have prevented him from being in Moscow in late
December, renouncing his citizenship as the US delegations offers to share
technology information. Therefore, the reason for Lee having to arrive
earlier must have occurred on the Russian end.
Word was sent back that Lee had to have his request for Soviet citizenship
in place BEFORE the US delegation arrived in Moscow in December. This
requires (in theory) someone on the Soviet side was "expecting" Lee's
arrival and "defection". This "someone" advised that Lee's admittance was
going to be unavoidably "held up" and that the delegation's offer to share
technology would be "put on ice" and made to wait until the holdup could
be removed. The USG decision would now have had to be made whether the
December delegation was to be left, sitting on ice, in Moscow - waiting
for their "deal" involving Oswald to be approved - or if it simply
wouldn't be easier to get Oswald to Moscow earlier - And have him "sit on
ice" instead of the delegation while the Soviets cleared the "red tape"
for his admission ?
If this happened - And James and I will present evidence that both the USG
and USSR were expecting Lee's "defection" - then Lee had to obtain an
early discharge from the USMC.
The record shows Lee did just that - And accelerated his planned timetable
for leaving the USA.
We can see that Lee originally planned to enter the USSR after his
scheduled December 8, 1959 discharge by his 3/19/59 application to attend
Albert Schweitzer College from April 12, 1960 to June 27, 1960.
That the USMC hurried Lee's dependency discharge app is demonstrated by
it's being acted on by the HIGHEST AUTHORITY (Poindexter) just two days
after submission - and that a second approval was given on August 24 -
Both before it was determined if John Pic was making a "Q" allotment to
his mother (Which he was not). Two days later, a review board was
recommended to be formed to rule - which took place THE VERY NEXT DAY - On
August 27. It also ruled for early discharge, again, without waiting for
the response to the Pic letter.
The review board was missing the following required information:
3 September, 1959 Dr. Howard's letter
4 September, 1959 Mrs. Oswald's letter providing the required statement of
Mrs. Oswald's income and expenses not submitted to the board. (This letter
shows income.....not reported in the 7 Aug, 1959 "Q" allotment form
submitted.)
4 Sept, 1959 AF letter on John Pic showing no "Q" allotment on this son.
4 Sept, 1959 Dr. Kleuser letter
Yet the board still ruled for Lee's early discharge.
BTW, James provided most of the above discharge information in a 9/02/2001
post. I want to give credit where credit is due. He has never mentioned
the December 1959 formal US offer to "share ideas" with the USSR.
::Clark::
[..]
How the dependency discharge became the "Hardship" discharge.
This element of Oswald's background is critical.
To catch some up, in 1959 a wittness, that knew the individual for a
period of at least two years, had to sign a passport application, there
was nobody Lee could have sign and verify Oswald was who he indicated he
was......so he had the USMC verify....and since Lt. Ayers was the
personnel officer handling Lee's seperation, he was the wittness.
On 12 September, Lt. Ayers, the same individual that had to be "the
wittness" for Lee's passport, dropped the "dependency" and replaced the
grounds as "hardship" simple and without question......since he was the
last man in the chain at that duty station. Those who were connected to
the discharge board were no longer involved. He is the only one in
position to act "By direction".
Lee was seperated the day before on the 11th, he was gone, the Service
Record would go forward and now Lee Harvey Oswald, would NOT BE recalled
to active duty because he had been seperated by a "Hardship Discharge".
He would NOT BE assigned to any USMCR unit.
However, one must move on to the next stage the 24th of September, 1959 in
the handling of Lee's service record.......a mistake was made.......in
processing Lee's records they went to the "Ready Reserve"
section.....which meant he could be recalled to AD at anytime up to the
age of 35. Now the issue becomes cloudy.......was Lee discharged for a
hardship to take care of his mother or discharged to be recalled at any
time after 11 September, 1959? Considering the events that followed, Lee
was discharged from his assignment on active duty in the USMC to a new
assignment in the USMCR. Under the law Lee could have been seperated and
placed on "detail" for 120 to 180 days on a special
assignment......normally called a "Presidential Detail", which can cover a
number of tasks, where "one individual" is needed.
The direction of the records and the directions taken by Oswald, clearly
support Lee going to the USSR in support of the USG.......not as a
"Marxist Marine" bored with taking care of his mother, without a job, with
no money and no future. He could not reach this point on his own.
I have assembled all the records, the laws in support and applied them to
what actually took place.
jko
> >
> > Oswald's hurry to speed up his entry into the USSR coincided with the
> > American Exposition in Moscow in 1959, which included Richard Nixon's
> > kitchen debate on July 24, 1959 and Kruschev's visit to the US in the
> > following September.
>
> Preperations on the part of Oswald, had to start prior to the July 24
> debate,
Correct.
>starting with the selection of Oswald for the task that required
> him to actually travel to the USSR, instead of Cuba. I strongly suspect
> that Lee was earmarked to go to Cuba, since he was pulled out of staying
> in Japan. Cuba was the most obvisious reason, that Lee was prevented from
> staying in Japan, based on his activities once he returned. After the fall
> of Batista, Cuban operationial needs shifted and Oswald was not the right
> individual in this area. The "dependency grounds" offically started, 1
> June, 1959, with the "D" allotment, the "Q" allotment request started 20,
> July, 1959, so if these actions were part of any defection plan.....things
> had to start no later then May, 1959.
For early discharge - Yes.
But, on March 19, 1959 he applied for the spring term at AS college,
indicating he expected to be discharged in December, 1959 at that time.
Thus, sometime around April-May, 1959 the need arose for Lee to obtain an
early discharge and get to the USSR sooner than December, 1959.
> I believe that things started
> before 20 February, 1959.
Would this be when Lee took his Russian language test?
> The Knight and Childs Affidavits were both
> "made" 24 July, 1959. which were also prior to the one made by Mrs.
> Oswald.
>
> >
> > This followed the June 9, 1959 launching of the USS George Washington,
the
> > first submarine to carry ballistic missiles. Kruschev saw this as a
threat
> > and made it clear to Nixon that war was now out of the question and
declared
> > his country was the "greater" military power but that he wanted to
negotiate
> > the removal of US bases from nearby foreign countries (The US had some
60
> > Jupiter missiles in Italy and Turkey). Nixon, meanwhile, was interested
in
> > promoting the free exchange of ideas - particularly technology. They
used
> > television technology as the example (Oswald would go to work for a
radio
> > factory).
>
> The same factory made radar equipment for civilian and military use.
I didn't know that.
>
> >
> > Thus, as of July 24, 1959, the USSR was interested in reducing the ABM
> > threat of the US and the US was interested in the "free sharing" of
ideas
> > (concerning, as we shall see, space programs). Krushev agreed to a
reciprocal
> > visit to the US.
>
> These exchanges would still take some time to reach the point Oswald comes
> into play.......but the plans are progressing. Lee would not be needed
> until all of certain private talks were finalized......he did however have
> to be on his way.
And be there in December, 1959 if his arrival is connected to Nixon's
offer to "share ideas", officially presented in December, 1959.
>
> >
> > Kruschev and Oswald passed by each other in September, headed in
opposite
> > directions to each other's country's.
>
> But the agreements have not yet been finalized.
Agreed.
One would expect that this was the subject of Krushev's visit to Iowa
State University - It seems the "sharing of ideas" Kruschev had in mind
dealt with agriculture Krushev was himself a Minister of Agriculture under
Stalin until replaced in 1951 and had experienced a famine for which he
was critisized by Stalin..
>
> >
> > In December 1959, the US officially approached the USSR offering space
> > 'cooperation'.
> >
>
> There was more to this.......Project TP is the prime consideration of
> where Lee fits in with this "cooperation".
"TP"?
>
>
> > In December, 1959, Lee Harvey Oswald was granted a one year visa to the
> > USSR.
> >
>
> Lee in my opinion was only going to stay 10 days at first....even though
> he had a 6 day entry visa he would be "kicked out" before the 10 days were
> up. Things had to change during that first week......
I have him as destined to enter the USSR from day one. No need to take a
Russian language course or slash one's wrists for a 10 day trip. Further,
his press correspondent interviews were carefully orchestrated to send a
"message" concerning his status and where he was headed.
>for some reason Lee
> was needed to be there.......but it was a tricky situation for Lee. For
> example he was "prevented" from attending the daily or weekly workers
> meetings.
I thought he wasn't interested in attending?
::Clark::
From: "clark wilkins" <clwilkins@prodigy.net>
Newsgroups: alt.assassination.jfk
Subject: Re: The "early out" of Oswald
Date: 12 Oct 2004 22:43:36 -0400
"James K. Olmstead" <Thpa2d@onecom.com> wrote in message
news:416b562d@mcadams.posc.mu.edu...
>
> "clark wilkins" <clwilkins@prodigy.net> wrote in message
news:10mm2kh6dfn699b@corp.supernews.com...
> >
> > "clark wilkins" <clwilkins@prodigy.net> wrote in message
> > news:10mkcarlucpqpf3@corp.supernews.com...
> > >
> > > "James K. Olmstead" <Thpa2d@onecom.com> wrote in message
> > > news:41696986@mcadams.posc.mu.edu...
> > > > The first endorsement dated August 19, 1959, on "Pfc OSWALD's ltr of
17
> > > August 1959",
> > > > made by J.W. Poindexter was sent forward indicating approval for
> > > "DEPENDENCY DISCHARGE".
> > > >
> > > > The term "Hardship Discharge" does not actually apply to Oswald
except
> > in
> > > general terms, the
> > > > request was made to take care of his mother, who is now a
"dependent",
> > > since her July request for
> > > > dependency.
> >
> > Actually, I believe Lee made this request on July 20 and not his mother.
> > Correct?
>
> the paper work actually starts 1 June to list Mrs. Oswald as a dependent.
> The request for the "Q" allotment starts 20 July, made by Oswald. She did
> not fill out the paper work, Lee did.....however it is her
> request........wording issue.
>
This process appears to be timed to meet a September 8 discharge - the 90
day window you mentioned below.
> >
> >
> > > > The "Hardship" was the need for some family member to
> > > takecare of Mrs. Oswald.
> >
> > John Pic was also able to send money.
>
> Although higher rank he had a family to support in Japan.
>
> >
> > > > Poindexter uses the term "hardship" to discribe the depenedency
> > > considering that the funds she will
> > > > recieve, while Oswald is in service, will "not sufficiently
alleviate
> > this
> > > situation".
> >
> > Except John Pic is also in the service and also able to send funds.
> > But he didn't.
>
> So could have Robert......but neither were "asked" ? or involved.
>
Yes. Lee has asked his mother to ask him.
When was his mother's "accident"?
> >
> > > >
> > > > The ironic element here is that she will be receiving $91.30 from
> > Oswald,
> > > while he is in
> > > > service. Once he seperates, she will have nothing coming in from
Oswald,
> > > nor does he have a job
> > > > waiting for him that would replace this $91.30 available while he is
> > still
> > > in service.
> >
> > Actually there may be irony in Oswald's lack of concern for his mother
but
> > I think even the LNer's will agree that Lee's early discharge request
was
> > to speed up his entry into the USSR and not to help his mother.
>
> they don't agree with much outside of the WCR.
>
> >
> > If we note Lee's scheduled discharge date, December 8(?), 1959, we find
> > that the US planned approach for "free sharing of ideas" with the USSR
is
> > timed to coincide with Oswald's discharge.
> >
> > And, sure enough, the Russians did not give Lee a visa until late
> > December, 1959 - even though he arrived early.
> >
> > He was made to "sit on ice" at his Moscow hotel until then.
>
> Actually I believe he was kept buzy......but that's for later.
According to him, he was studying Russian.
> >
> >
> > > > If Oswald
> > > > continued to send the "D" allotment of $40. Mrs Oswald would have
> > > > $131. 30 each month coming in that would cover the majority of her
> > listed
> > > expenses.
> >
> > And if John Pic sent the same she would have had $ 171.30 each month.
> >
>
> And if Robert kicked in or Lee took money out of his "savings" the
> discharge was not needed.
>
Yes. Lee's early discharge request was phoney. You and I have seen through
it in 48 hours. Yet the USMC doesn't see through it at all - not in 1959
and not in 1962. And over four people looked at it.
> >
> > > >
> > > > Now for the legal conflict in consideration of this endorsement.
Some
> > of
> > > the data supplied to
> > > > Poindexter is false. First consideration:
> > > >
> > > > "a. Pfc OSWALD'S EOS is 23 October, 1962"
> > > >
> > > > The date based on his "bad time" (days in the brig) was offically
listed
> > > in his service
> > > > record as "8 December, 1962". This is the date his military
obligation
> > is
> > > over. It is
> > > > based on his enlistment date and adding 6 years. (Conflict on this
> > > enlistment date later).
> >
> > The effect of the "error" is to make it appear that Lee is only seeking
a
> > thirty day early discharge.
> >
>
> Yes, that's the basic consideration.
>
If this "mistake" wasn't made, Lee would be subject to the 90 day ruled
you cite below.
> >
> > > >
> > > > The problem is that this also indicates that Oswald's ETS is 23
October,
> > > 1959, only 65
> > > > days away. Which when leave time available is consider, Lee has less
> > then
> > > 45 days of
> > > > service at the time the application is made for seperation. The ETS
> > > however is 8 Dec, 1959 not 23
> > > > October, 1959. This is 105 days away from the
application......outside
> > of
> > > > the 90 day window.
> >
> > What is the "90 day window"?
> >
>
> The law allows these types of early discharges up to 90 days prior to
> ETS..not 91, 92, etc days before ETS. It can be less then 90 days but not
> more then.
>
That would correspond to about September 8, 1959.
Looks like somebody knew the rule.
> > > >
> > > > The only dependency "evidence" provided Poindexter is the "D
allotment"
> > > of $40
> > > > of which the first payment was made in August of 1959. This was
money
> > > send by
> > > > Oswald out of his pay.
> >
>
> The following is data that was obtained but not forwarded to Poindexter
>
>
> > On August 17, 1959 Lee presented his Request for Dependancy Discharge.
> > Included with it was the following:
> >
> > 1) 21 July, 1959 Dr. Hamilton Letter stating Mrs. Oswald was first seen
20
> > Feb, 1959 and last seen on the 25th of May, 1959. The letter is
addressed
> > "To Whom it may concern". Presumably it was included with the following:
> >
> > 2) 22 July, 1959 Spurlock, Scattman and Jacobs, law firm letter to
inform
> > anyone concerned that Mrs. Oswald is having difficulty in delay with her
> > Workman's Compensation Benifits claim.
> >
> > 3) 24 July, 1959 Mrs. Knight Affidavit
> > Gladys Johnson, NP
> >
> > 4) 24 July, 1959 Mrs. Childs Affidavit
> > Ima Hamilton, NP
> >
> > 5) 28 July, 1959 Mrs. Oswald Affidavit
> > Gladys Johnson, NP
> >
> > 6) 31 July, 1959 Major R. A. Cooley, Dept of USN letter to Mrs. Oswald
> > informimg her of Lee's request for the "Q" allotment, sending her the
form
> > needed to be filled out. Mrs. Oswald, filled out the form and sent it
out
> > on the 7th of August, 1959. NP's name can not be read.
> >
> > The above information was received by Admiral Pointdexter who
recommended
> > approval of the discharge request on August 19, 1959 - Or just two days
> > after Lee Harvey Oswald submitted it.
> >
>
> Only the "D" Allotment was submitted to Poindexter.
Poindexter made his decision based on just the "D" allotment? Isn't that
meaingless?
> All of the above were
> not "included" in the "Service Record" nor were they the required
> information or evidence required. They were obtained before Mrs. Oswald
> recieved the 31 July, 1959 letter of instructions listing the evidence in
> support needed.
So Lee had these items but failed to provide them to Poindexter?
Lee had obtained these for showing to some person related to his
discharge. But, evidently, that person wasn't Poindexter.
It would appear he intended it for the officer who sent his mother the
letter of August 24 in order to meet and bypass his expected interference.
He still interferred. This interference was solved by calling for a review
board which acted without the requested information. Thus, the officer of
August 24 was bypassed.
Since Lee has no authority to create the review board, the letter of Aug
24 was bypassed from top down (i.e. Poindexter).
> The form needed was dated 7 August, 1959. On 24 August
> she was informed she needed to provide additional information which was
> not submitted until 4 September. Dr. Howards letter was dated Sept 3,
> 1959, and another dated 4 Sept.
>
But the officer requesting said info has already been overruled in making
it before the additional information even arrived.
>
> > > >
> > > > Moving on........
> >
> > The overlooked conclusion is that Lee and his mother had been working
> > together since July 20 to put together this August 17 application.
> > Because, otherwise, the affidavits she collected were unnecessary to Lee
> > filing
> >
> > None of the previous letters and affidavits were required for his 20
July,
> > 1959 Request for a Allowance for Dependents. Therefore, there was never
> > any plan to send her money. The July 20 request was meant as a first
> > necessary step for the August 17 request.
> >
> >
> >
> > > >
> > > > The second endorsement is of 24 August,1959, the third is of 26
August,
> > > 1959 both being approved.
> > > >
> > > > The fourth endorsement, 28 August, 1959, shows additional conflict
of
> > the
> > > record. It shows Oswald's
> > > > ETS as 7 December, 1959. This the last day of Oswald "active duty".
> > Which
> > > is one day prior to the
> > > > 8 December, 1959 adjusted "offical" ETS and is the proper date for
> > release
> > > according to
> > > > regulations. The fourth endorsement authorizes "Dependency Discharge".
> >
> > Lee is approved in 11 days for a dependency discharge.
>
> It was pre-approved "By direction".
>
And from above...at least as high as Poindexter. The one attempt to slow
the process down by requesting more info was ignored.
No delays could be tolerated - even for two weeks.
> >
> > > >
> > > > All of these above endorsements are made in August. The key
documents of
> > > the supporting evidence to
> > > > show and confirm "hardship" are not SUBMITTED or even made until after
> > > September when the discharge
> > > > was given.
> >
> > ???
> > I show all of Mrs. Oswald's affidavits were made in July - not September.
>
> The "key documents of the supporting evidence" were not summited until
> after 4 September, 1959. None of the July letters were of any value.
>
How close did the July letters come to meeting the requirements of the
September letters? I would anticipate they must have come close - as some
of them come from the same people.
If they come close, it suggests that Lee had insight as to what would be
requested on August 24.
>
> >
> >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Oswald's hurry to speed up his entry into the USSR coincided with the
> > > American Exposition in Moscow in 1959, which included Richard Nixon's
> > > kitchen debate on July 24, 1959 and Kruschev's visit to the US in the
> > > following September.
> > >
> > > This followed the June 9, 1959 launching of the USS George Washington,
the
> > > first submarine to carry ballistic missiles. Kruschev saw this as a
threat
> > > and made it clear to Nixon that war was now out of the question and
declared
> > > his country was the "greater" military power but that he wanted to
negotiate
> > > the removal of US bases from nearby foreign countries (The US had some
60
> > > Jupiter missiles in Italy and Turkey). Nixon, meanwhile, was
interested in
> > > promoting the free exchange of ideas - particularly technology. They
used
> > > television technology as the example (Oswald would go to work for a
radio
> > > factory).
> > >
> > > Thus, as of July 24, 1959, the USSR was interested in reducing the ABM
> > > threat of the US and the US was interested in the "free sharing" of
ideas
> > > (concerning, as we shall see, space programs). Krushev agreed to a
reciprocal
> > > visit to the US.
> > >
> > > Kruschev and Oswald passed by each other in September, headed in
opposite
> > > directions to each other's country's.
> > >
> > > In December 1959, the US officially approached the USSR offering space
> > > 'cooperation'.
> > >
> > > In December, 1959, Lee Harvey Oswald was granted a one year visa to
the
> > > USSR.
> >
> > >From the above, we see that Lee's request for early dependency
discharge
> > did not speed up his ability to enter the USSR and obtain a one year
> > Soviet visa. He was still "put on ice" at his hotel and made to wait.
Wait
> > for what? The US delegation to arrive offering to share technology as a
> > trade for getting him in? We see the delegation's arrival was timed (by
> > intention or by coincidence) to coincide with Oswald's discharge, which
> > would have placed him in the USSR in late December, just in time to be
> > granted his temporary Soviet visa - as he historically was.
>
> The above is a consideration, however not the best, the ""one year visa"
> was not part of any consideration prior to Lee arriving......at least not
> in my opinion. Lee's job was done the minute he crossed the boarder. He
> only held the material as "it" crossed the boarder and he handed it off.
>
Would this be the "free sharing of ideas" Nixon spoke of?
In my consideration, Lee is, at all points in time, attempting to enter
the USSR (He only has funds for a "one way" trip) and the Russians are
expecting him. Otherwise, they simply would have removed his access to
razor blades and walked him to the nearest border. The Russians should
have done exactly the opposite of what they did when Lee attempted
suicide.
IMO, there is an argument going on, inside the highest offices of the USSR
on whether to let him in or not, with Krushev in favor and his opponents
against. The arguments "against" required Lee's early (pre December)
arrival in the USSR in order to wait for them to be overcome.
My conclusion is that Lee is part of the "free exchange of ideas" deal
made with the USSR in December,1959. Yet neither side could admit to Lee's
role. On the US side, no one wants to admit that they gave the USSR
American technology (possibly agriculture related from Iowa State
University) and so a "defector" offers it, on the USSR side, no one wants
to admit that they just allowed an American observor into their country
(As evidenced by Lee's "The Kollective") in exchange for it. Opposition to
Oswald's entry, had to be eliminated on the Soviet side by December, 1959
if it was to correspond to the US offer to "share ideas" made that same
month. If Oswald was not admitted in December, 1959, the US offer to
"share ideas" would have been withdrawn by the December delegation. The
Russians needed more time to get Lee cleared by December, 1959 - and
requested the wheels for the trade be set in motion before December, 1959
- necessitating Oswald's early discharge.
Poindexter will now personally see to it that Private Oswald's early
discharge is approved, brushing aside the Aug 24 request for more
information, and getting Lee out on the earliest possible date that still
fit within the 90 day "window".
Lee now heads over early and sits on ice at his Moscow hotel waiting for
the December, 1959 deal to take place.
Lee sent a message, twice, to the US in December, 1959, stating not only
that he had successfully gotten in, but where he was going.
Lee's finances show he brought the exact amount of money needed to stay in
the USSR into December, 1959. I don't think this is coincidence.
> >
> > If the delegation's arrival in December, 1959 was deliberately timed to
> > coincide with Oswald's arrival then something happened that required Lee
> > to arrive earlier than planned. There is nothing in Oswald's December
> > discharge date that would have prevented him from being in Moscow in late
> > December, renouncing his citizenship as the US delegations offers to share
> > technology information. Therefore, the reason for Lee having to arrive
> > earlier must have occurred on the Russian end.
>
> Lee could have bought a round trip ticket from L.A. or N.Y.C. for $30.00
> on the new fly now pay later plan being pushed by TWA. and left at any
> time. There was a purpose behind the boat trip. He would have only had
> to travel about 24 hours, by flying and screwed the airlines......if he
> was as presented.
I think trans-Atlantic air travel was very, very expensive in 1959,
although the USG certainly could have afforded to pay his airfare. I don't
know why they didn't. I can see why they didn't let him take a military
flight - a rather embarrassing eans for a planned "defector" to reach the
USSR if revealed.
I see Lee as being put on a budget and given a destination.
>
>
> >
> > Word was sent back that Lee had to have his request for Soviet
citizenship
> > in place BEFORE the US delegation arrived in Moscow in December. This
> > requires (in theory) someone on the Soviet side was "expecting" Lee's
> > arrival and "defection". This "someone" advised that Lee's admittance
was
> > going to be unavoidably "held up" and that the delegation's offer to
share
> > technology would be "put on ice" and made to wait until the holdup could
> > be removed. The USG decision would now have had to be made whether the
> > December delegation was to be left, sitting on ice, in Moscow - waiting
> > for their "deal" involving Oswald to be approved - or if it simply
> > wouldn't be easier to get Oswald to Moscow earlier - And have him "sit
on
> > ice" instead of the delegation while the Soviets cleared the "red tape"
> > for his admission ?
> >
>
> Synder was aware of Oswald.......I've mention the "address" issue in the
> past, you can take it that I don't want to add it to this thread. A
> member of the Supreme Soviet.....was prepared to "take care of Lee" I've
> mentioned her as well in the past.
Yes. And approval for Lee to stay in the USSR came from the "Supreme
Soviet". In addition to "her" (Who couldn't be closer or more trusted to
Krushev) I have also traced Leo Setyaev as being a participant to Lee's
entry into the USSR and, later, his exit - on the Soviet side of the deal.
Without these two, Lee would have been escorted to the nearest border and
dumped.
>
>
> > If this happened - And James and I will present evidence that both the
USG
> > and USSR were expecting Lee's "defection" - then Lee had to obtain an
> > early discharge from the USMC.
> >
>
> This is one of the areas where we agree on one point but disagree on
> another. Both the USG and the USSR expected the "defection". It could not
> have happened without the support of both.
Absolutely. On the US side we have pointed to Poindexter's participation
and Snyder's participation is far more provable than Poindexter's. Snyder
left a path to follow a mile wide behind himself.
>
> > The record shows Lee did just that - And accelerated his planned
timetable
> > for leaving the USA.
> >
> > We can see that Lee originally planned to enter the USSR after his
> > scheduled December 8, 1959 discharge by his 3/19/59 application to
attend
> > Albert Schweitzer College from April 12, 1960 to June 27, 1960.
> >
> > That the USMC hurried Lee's dependency discharge app is demonstrated by
> > it's being acted on by the HIGHEST AUTHORITY (Poindexter) just two days
> > after submission - and that a second approval was given on August 24 -
> > Both before it was determined if John Pic was making a "Q" allotment to
> > his mother (Which he was not). Two days later, a review board was
> > recommended to be formed to rule - which took place THE VERY NEXT DAY -
On
> > August 27. It also ruled for early discharge, again, without waiting for
> > the response to the Pic letter.
> >
>
> The Pic data came in on 4 September, 1959
>
And, when considered necessary information on Aug 24, was no longer
considered necessary on Aug 27 - A period of just THREE DAYS!
The USMC did everything it had to do to get LHO out of the service, 90
days early. And successfully accomplished same.
>
> > The review board was missing the following required information:
> >
> > 3 September, 1959 Dr. Howard's letter
> >
> > 4 September, 1959 Mrs. Oswald's letter providing the required statement
of
> > Mrs. Oswald's income and expenses not submitted to the board. (This
letter
> > shows income.....not reported in the 7 Aug, 1959 "Q" allotment form
> > submitted.)
> >
> > 4 Sept, 1959 AF letter on John Pic showing no "Q" allotment on this son.
> >
> > 4 Sept, 1959 Dr. Kleuser letter
> >
> > Yet the board still ruled for Lee's early discharge.
> >
>
> These are the "key documents" I mentioned above
>
Lee was drummed out on orders from above. He then wasted no time in
heading for the USSR where Snyder was waiting for his arrival...
> >
> > BTW, James provided most of the above discharge information in a
9/02/2001
> > post. I want to give credit where credit is due. He has never mentioned
> > the December 1959 formal US offer to "share ideas" with the USSR.
> >
> >
>
> That's the area we disagree on......but that's ok at this time. I'm not
> sure many can handle the full details all at one time.
>
> jko
Looking forward to hearing what operation you identify Lee as being
involved in.
For lurkers, JKO and I have reached similar (although not identical)
conclusions using separate evidence. Due to the fact that we use separate
evidence and due to differences of how we often view the same evidence, we
don't always agree on the conclusions drawn (In fact, that's a rare
occassion). What we did find was that the presented history of LHO is
incorrect. Regardless of what you believe happened on 11/22/63, the idea
that Oswald was acting "on his own" when he entered the US embassy in
Moscow is flat out contradicted by the evidence.
We do not simply rely on "Poindexter approving Oswald's discharge" as the
basis for our case. That connection is admittedly flimsy taken by itself.
We had to start somewhere and JKO had posted on Oswald's discharge and
this is where I happened to jump in. Poindexter's participation aside, we
have shown that Lee's early discharge was aided by his superiors, who
removed all obstacles for additional requested information which might
slow down his discharge, with the result being that Lee obtained the
earlest possible release from the USMC.
For Lee's part, we can see that his plan to obtain an early discharge
originated sometime between March 19, 1959 and June 1, 1959 (Probably May
IMO) and that he knew ALL the steps in the required process, beginning
with his d eclaringhismotheradependentonJune1,1959.
It will be interesting to see if JKO can demonstrate a link between the
affidavits Lee collected in July and those requested in August.
::Clark::
From: "James K. Olmstead" <Thpa2d@onecom.com>
Newsgroups: alt.assassination.jfk
Subject: Re: The "early out" of Oswald
Date: 13 Oct 2004 10:12:59 -0400
Clark: I'm going to snip old stuff....let me know if you object.
"clark wilkins" <clwilkins@prodigy.net> wrote in message news:10mojs8qq0e010@corp.supernews.com...
> > >
> > > Oswald's hurry to speed up his entry into the USSR coincided with the
> > > American Exposition in Moscow in 1959, which included Richard Nixon's
> > > kitchen debate on July 24, 1959 and Kruschev's visit to the US in the
> > > following September.
> >
> > Preperations on the part of Oswald, had to start prior to the July 24
> > debate,
>
> Correct.
>
> >starting with the selection of Oswald for the task that required
> > him to actually travel to the USSR, instead of Cuba. I strongly suspect
> > that Lee was earmarked to go to Cuba, since he was pulled out of staying
> > in Japan. Cuba was the most obvisious reason, that Lee was prevented from
> > staying in Japan, based on his activities once he returned. After the fall
> > of Batista, Cuban operationial needs shifted and Oswald was not the right
> > individual in this area. The "dependency grounds" offically started, 1
> > June, 1959, with the "D" allotment, the "Q" allotment request started 20,
> > July, 1959, so if these actions were part of any defection plan.....things
> > had to start no later then May, 1959.
>
> For early discharge - Yes.
> But, on March 19, 1959 he applied for the spring term at AS college,
> indicating he expected to be discharged in December, 1959 at that time.
The school issue and all the retated connections is where Greg's work comes in.
Because of the quality of his research, I don't get into the details in depth. His
connections are in my opinion of interest and need to be explored in greater detail.
>
> Thus, sometime around April-May, 1959 the need arose for Lee to obtain an
> early discharge and get to the USSR sooner than December, 1959.
>
> > I believe that things started
> > before 20 February, 1959.
>
> Would this be when Lee took his Russian language test?
It is around this time......off hand I'm not sure exactly....but could look it up.
>
> > The Knight and Childs Affidavits were both
> > "made" 24 July, 1959. which were also prior to the one made by Mrs.
> > Oswald.
> >
> > >
> > > This followed the June 9, 1959 launching of the USS George Washington,
> the
> > > first submarine to carry ballistic missiles. Kruschev saw this as a
> threat
> > > and made it clear to Nixon that war was now out of the question and
> declared
> > > his country was the "greater" military power but that he wanted to
> negotiate
> > > the removal of US bases from nearby foreign countries (The US had some
> 60
> > > Jupiter missiles in Italy and Turkey). Nixon, meanwhile, was interested
> in
> > > promoting the free exchange of ideas - particularly technology. They
> used
> > > television technology as the example (Oswald would go to work for a
> radio
> > > factory).
> >
> > The same factory made radar equipment for civilian and military use.
>
> I didn't know that.
>
The CIA did and the plant production was of interest. The U.S. military was also
interested in Minsk. The Soviets followed the German production plan.....but after
the war. The plan can best be understood by reading "Why England Slept" by JFK.
> >
> > >
> > > Thus, as of July 24, 1959, the USSR was interested in reducing the ABM
> > > threat of the US and the US was interested in the "free sharing" of
> ideas
> > > (concerning, as we shall see, space programs). Krushev agreed to a
> reciprocal
> > > visit to the US.
> >
> > These exchanges would still take some time to reach the point Oswald comes
> > into play.......but the plans are progressing. Lee would not be needed
> > until all of certain private talks were finalized......he did however have
> > to be on his way.
>
> And be there in December, 1959 if his arrival is connected to Nixon's
> offer to "share ideas", officially presented in December, 1959.
>
I believe that the ground work was already a done deal. I believe this 'handshake"
treaty was worked out during the Nixon/Niki "boat ride". Nixon did far more then
people knew in Ike's admin. In fact Ike admitted it during a press conf...but that
comment was used "against" him in the election. Ike was asked about some of the
greatest things that Nixon did as VP......Ike said "I'd have to think about it"....(roughly)
The press took this to mean Ike could not think of anything great Nixon did, but in
truth he meant he would have to think about what he could actually say.....that was
not "classified" or that Nixon ran things, while Ike was ill. It might have cost Nixon
the election.
> >
> > >
> > > Kruschev and Oswald passed by each other in September, headed in
> opposite
> > > directions to each other's country's.
> >
> > But the agreements have not yet been finalized.
>
> Agreed.
Lee's departure however was during the public release of the first announcement
of the project Lee (in my opinion) was connected to. Project TP was a early warning
system, that the U.S. was to share with other nations. This was a "radar" project worked
on by the Navy R&D.
>
> One would expect that this was the subject of Krushev's visit to Iowa
> State University - It seems the "sharing of ideas" Kruschev had in mind
> dealt with agriculture Krushev was himself a Minister of Agriculture under
> Stalin until replaced in 1951 and had experienced a famine for which he
> was critisized by Stalin..
>
The wheat deals played a major role in US/Soviet relations.
> >
> > >
> > > In December 1959, the US officially approached the USSR offering space
> > > 'cooperation'.
> > >
> >
> > There was more to this.......Project TP is the prime consideration of
> > where Lee fits in with this "cooperation".
>
> "TP"?
The Thaler Project, worked on by Dr. William J. Thaler, Office of Naval Research.
It was made public August 7, 1959. In 1959 the Soviets sent us all of their reseach
on Sputnik "first" and when Nixon express his priviate "thanks" during his visit, TP was
"offered" to expand agreements. This fit in with Ike's Open Skies Treaty. I've mentioned
this in the past......it is the most logical connection to consider of all known intell operations,
connected to "joint" efforts, that the public was not fully aware of due, to public and political
concerns on both sides.
>
> >
> >
> > > In December, 1959, Lee Harvey Oswald was granted a one year visa to the
> > > USSR.
> > >
> >
> > Lee in my opinion was only going to stay 10 days at first....even though
> > he had a 6 day entry visa he would be "kicked out" before the 10 days were
> > up. Things had to change during that first week......
>
> I have him as destined to enter the USSR from day one. No need to take a
> Russian language course or slash one's wrists for a 10 day trip. Further,
> his press correspondent interviews were carefully orchestrated to send a
> "message" concerning his status and where he was headed.
The sucide attempt never took place.......it's pure and simple cover and a piss poor one
at that.
>
>
> >for some reason Lee
> > was needed to be there.......but it was a tricky situation for Lee. For
> > example he was "prevented" from attending the daily or weekly workers
> > meetings.
>
> I thought he wasn't interested in attending?
Attending, would be counter to regulations and laws that were being used against
POW's of the Korean War back in the U.S. at this time. It was a "tricky situation"
and is a prime consideration in the aspects of "failure to prosecute" Oswald and his
citizenship status. There are far greater problems connected to the "defection" than
have been offically presented. However, they never would have surfaced except for
Oswald's involvement in Novemeber of 1963. But the USG could not present all of
the facts for reasons of National Security. The facts are out there and the surface
can be seen. However many of the confirmation details remain locked away or destroyed
as we know since my FOIA request established "criminal history records" were.
jko
>
>
> ::Clark::
From: "James K. Olmstead" <Thpa2d@onecom.com>
Newsgroups: alt.assassination.jfk
Subject: Re: The "early out" of Oswald
Date: 13 Oct 2004 13:12:20 -0400
Clark.....small snip at the begining
"clark wilkinsclwilkins@prodigy.netwroteinmessagenews10moqvjd2o4pbe5@corp.supernews.com...
>
> > >
> > > Actually, I believe Lee made this request on July 20 and not his mother.
> > > Correct?
> >
> > the paper work actually starts 1 June to list Mrs. Oswald as a dependent.
> > The request for the "Q" allotment starts 20 July, made by Oswald. She did
> > not fill out the paper work, Lee did.....however it is her
> > request........wording issue.
> >
>
> This process appears to be timed to meet a September 8 discharge - the 90
> day window you mentioned below.
>
It starts just before the public release on August 7, 1959 of plans for using Project TP.
It must however be remembered that at this time.......Project TP was already outdated,
with a new and better system. However TP was "new" and not available to the nations
that we planned to share this system with. Public disclosure about the "sharing" was
important well before any "finalized agreements" could be made. It was a brillant plan
to prevent "first strike" worries.....and I think it was all Nixon's idea supported by Ike's
desires. Joe Kennedy was involved in this and I also believe JFK objected to some
aspects of this, but those objections were probably made in priviate between Joe Sr.
JFK and RFK. Papa Joe was a key member of the 5412 subcommittee that had to
"approve" of such intelligence operations. Go back to the 1955-56 period to verify
this, Papa Joe sent RFK to the USSR to re-establish JFK's connections made just
prior to WWII.
>
> > >
> > >
> > > > > The "Hardship" was the need for some family member to
> > > > takecare of Mrs. Oswald.
> > >
> > > John Pic was also able to send money.
> >
> > Although higher rank he had a family to support in Japan.
> >
> > >
> > > > > Poindexter uses the term "hardship" to discribe the depenedency
> > > > considering that the funds she will
> > > > > recieve, while Oswald is in service, will "not sufficiently
> alleviate
> > > this
> > > > situation".
> > >
> > > Except John Pic is also in the service and also able to send funds.
> > > But he didn't.
> >
> > So could have Robert......but neither were "asked" ? or involved.
> >
>
> Yes. Lee has asked his mother to ask him.
> When was his mother's "accident"?
>
>
Her first Dr. visit to Dr. Hamilton was 20 Feb, 1959, however her accident happened
5 December, 1958.
snip
> > >
> > > If we note Lee's scheduled discharge date, December 8(?), 1959, we find
> > > that the US planned approach for "free sharing of ideas" with the USSR
> is
> > > timed to coincide with Oswald's discharge.
> > >
> > > And, sure enough, the Russians did not give Lee a visa until late
> > > December, 1959 - even though he arrived early.
> > >
> > > He was made to "sit on ice" at his Moscow hotel until then.
> >
> > Actually I believe he was kept buzy......but that's for later.
>
> According to him, he was studying Russian.
Yes, and I believe it was within a "group" .....but that will be very difficult to
show at this time.........I do illustrate it in one of my filmscripts.
>
>
> > >
> > >
> > > > > If Oswald
> > > > > continued to send the "D" allotment of $40. Mrs Oswald would have
> > > > > $131. 30 each month coming in that would cover the majority of her
> > > listed
> > > > expenses.
> > >
> > > And if John Pic sent the same she would have had $ 171.30 each month.
> > >
> >
> > And if Robert kicked in or Lee took money out of his "savings" the
> > discharge was not needed.
> >
>
> Yes. Lee's early discharge request was phoney. You and I have seen through
> it in 48 hours. Yet the USMC doesn't see through it at all - not in 1959
> and not in 1962. And over four people looked at it.
Actually it's take me alot longer to work out all the primary and supporting details,
1964-1994, but I did see the conflict during the end of 63 and after reading the WR.
I knew things were "fishy" while reading the WR for the first time. Just never worked
on it in great detail. A clear path had to be laid out and each step supported by the law
and known history. There were alot of "wacko" outlines out there that had to be eliminated from
consideration.
snip
> > >
> > > The effect of the "error" is to make it appear that Lee is only seeking
> a
> > > thirty day early discharge.
> > >
> >
> > Yes, that's the basic consideration.
> >
>
> If this "mistake" wasn't made, Lee would be subject to the 90 day ruled
> you cite below.
>
The 90 window is not really important, but it was the ground work in working out
all the conflicts from taking Lee's fingerprint record and assignment of a service
number, prior to getting "permission to enlist" to his discharge. This shows Lee's
enlistment from start to finish is in conflict with the presented history.
> > >
> > > > >
> > > > > The problem is that this also indicates that Oswald's ETS is 23
> October,
> > > > 1959, only 65
> > > > > days away. Which when leave time available is consider, Lee has less
> > > then
> > > > 45 days of
> > > > > service at the time the application is made for seperation. The ETS
> > > > however is 8 Dec, 1959 not 23
> > > > > October, 1959. This is 105 days away from the
> application......outside
> > > of
> > > > > the 90 day window.
> > >
> > > What is the "90 day window"?
> > >
> >
> > The law allows these types of early discharges up to 90 days prior to
> > ETS..not 91, 92, etc days before ETS. It can be less then 90 days but not
> > more then.
> >
>
> That would correspond to about September 8, 1959.
> Looks like somebody knew the rule.
>
There were no grounds or need to go outside of it "offically". The ball park date was
around the 7th or 8th.....but I really think there was a "saftey factor" plus or minus a
few days, here. The 11th of Sepetmber discharge was well within the timeframe needed.
> > > > >
> > > > > The only dependency "evidence" provided Poindexter is the "D
> allotment"
> > > > of $40
> > > > > of which the first payment was made in August of 1959. This was
> money
> > > > send by
> > > > > Oswald out of his pay.
> > >
> >
> > The following is data that was obtained but not forwarded to Poindexter
> >
> >
> > > On August 17, 1959 Lee presented his Request for Dependancy Discharge.
> > > Included with it was the following:
> > >
> > > 1) 21 July, 1959 Dr. Hamilton Letter stating Mrs. Oswald was first seen
> 20
> > > Feb, 1959 and last seen on the 25th of May, 1959. The letter is
> addressed
> > > "To Whom it may concern". Presumably it was included with the following:
> > >
> > > 2) 22 July, 1959 Spurlock, Scattman and Jacobs, law firm letter to
> inform
> > > anyone concerned that Mrs. Oswald is having difficulty in delay with her
> > > Workman's Compensation Benifits claim.
> > >
> > > 3) 24 July, 1959 Mrs. Knight Affidavit
> > > Gladys Johnson, NP
> > >
> > > 4) 24 July, 1959 Mrs. Childs Affidavit
> > > Ima Hamilton, NP
> > >
> > > 5) 28 July, 1959 Mrs. Oswald Affidavit
> > > Gladys Johnson, NP
> > >
> > > 6) 31 July, 1959 Major R. A. Cooley, Dept of USN letter to Mrs. Oswald
> > > informimg her of Lee's request for the "Q" allotment, sending her the
> form
> > > needed to be filled out. Mrs. Oswald, filled out the form and sent it
> out
> > > on the 7th of August, 1959. NP's name can not be read.
> > >
> > > The above information was received by Admiral Pointdexter who
> recommended
> > > approval of the discharge request on August 19, 1959 - Or just two days
> > > after Lee Harvey Oswald submitted it.
> > >
> >
> > Only the "D" Allotment was submitted to Poindexter.
>
>
> Poindexter made his decision based on just the "D" allotment? Isn't that
> meaingless?
>
Yep......as well as all the "extra" data sent prior to the July 31 LOI to Mrs. Oswald.
But NOBODY would have bothered with this....if not for November 1963. The info
could NOT BE covered up......just "ignored".....by putting out the basic details, but
not the key considerations of how everything fit together. Sort of hiding it out in the
open. Too much for the average person to even bother with.
>
> > All of the above were
> > not "included" in the "Service Record" nor were they the required
> > information or evidence required. They were obtained before Mrs. Oswald
> > recieved the 31 July, 1959 letter of instructions listing the evidence in
> > support needed.
>
> So Lee had these items but failed to provide them to Poindexter?
The data was collected......for whatever reason, but to me it's just background
cover that was just to establish a need......that would not have mattered one way
or another if it was used or not. Lee would be seperated from his active duty
assignment one way or another. Only the offically requested data, after the
31 July LOI (letter of instruction) would be legal evidence. But some key element of
"confirmation" is missing......care to guess what? Here's a clue......the Red Cross/Red Cresent.
The early letters, show prior knowledge of what "would be" required and
that I think is more important then the content or use of these early letters. Like I
said.......NOBODY would bother with a detailed background check for any reason.
As a side note for you to consider......would $91.30 equal the money given Oswald
in the USSR for "quarters allowence?" To make his stay in the USSR easier? The
payment was authorized 30 September "By direction" (M. H. Insley). However
the person or office the "direction" is given is crossed out, in the doc I have.
I've never presented this factor of consideration before to anybody.
>
> Lee had obtained these for showing to some person related to his
> discharge. But, evidently, that person wasn't Poindexter.
>
> It would appear he intended it for the officer who sent his mother the
> letter of August 24 in order to meet and bypass his expected interference.
>
> He still interferred. This interference was solved by calling for a review
> board which acted without the requested information. Thus, the officer of
> August 24 was bypassed.
>
> Since Lee has no authority to create the review board, the letter of Aug
> 24 was bypassed from top down (i.e. Poindexter).
Don't worry about Poindexter.......you might have the wrong one in mind,
the only consideration that is important is that these endorsements went
ahead of the material needed in support......ie the September material.
>
> > The form needed was dated 7 August, 1959. On 24 August
> > she was informed she needed to provide additional information which was
> > not submitted until 4 September. Dr. Howards letter was dated Sept 3,
> > 1959, and another dated 4 Sept.
> >
>
> But the officer requesting said info has already been overruled in making
> it before the additional information even arrived.
This is a key issue, and it will be difficult to show correctly and in detail here. But here
is the basics. The sworn affidavits are made in the end of July....all requesting
discharge, not dependency allotment.
In July all these statement would all be directed to Major Cooley, Head of the Benefits Section,
since no formal request for discharge had been made as of yet (17 August)
Mrs. Oswald has to fill out a "Parent's Dependency Affidavit" and that was sent out 31 July, 1959.
Lee had to be "instructed" on what to obtain.....for both the "dependency" and "discharge"
at the same time. MAJOR CONFLICT OF INTEREST. Two requests were being made
that counter each other......all were "used" to seperate Lee early. Lee's request was a
"offical" document, prepared by "office personnel" * Lee would have to get this instruction
from "office personnel" or other sources. Since the two requests conflict, chances are
the instructions came from outside of the "chain".....ie other sources. However, both
requests are being kept "seperate" and these people are "outside the loop".
*although wrong ref was used Marine Corps Order 1910.18 instead of Para 10273 MCM.
All of this was going on prior to establishment of "dependency" and it's "approval". The
legal consideration for either the "allotment" or "discharge".......one or the other.
It's a cluster of conflict and that's the basic consideration.
snip
> > > > is one day prior to the
> > > > > 8 December, 1959 adjusted "offical" ETS and is the proper date for
> > > release
> > > > according to
> > > > > regulations. The fourth endorsement authorizes "Dependency Discharge".
> > >
> > > Lee is approved in 11 days for a dependency discharge.
> >
> > It was pre-approved "By direction".
> >
>
> And from above...at least as high as Poindexter. The one attempt to slow
> the process down by requesting more info was ignored.
>
> No delays could be tolerated - even for two weeks.
There remain a few days plus or minus.......it's not vital to release Lee on any
specific day as long as he is released before the ship sails.
>
> > > ???
> > > I show all of Mrs. Oswald's affidavits were made in July - not September.
> >
> > The "key documents of the supporting evidence" were not summited until
> > after 4 September, 1959. None of the July letters were of any value.
> >
>
> How close did the July letters come to meeting the requirements of the
> September letters? I would anticipate they must have come close - as some
> of them come from the same people.
They do.....it's just that there are other considerations that I mention above. There
are two seperate "needs"........both in conflict. This is another area that I have not
presented for discussion in the past......but I think you can see the problem. The
dependency has to be legally established before either the allotment or discharge.
It is (dependency) not established prior to the first 5 of the "endoresements" of
discharge, that require legal dependency......but the allotment is. However, if Lee
is discharged.......there is no allotment.......or is there? The conflicts however would
never see the light of day........EXCEPT for Oswald's involvement in November, 1963.
Because there are "3 sons" and Lee is the youngest and the poorest, the sole
responsibity of dependency ON HIM has to be covered before either the discharge
or the allotment can come into play.......which is only a small reason why things had
to start "early" on. The accident was not serious......snotty nose.... and I think it was
used improperly.....but it would serve the purposes.
>
> If they come close, it suggests that Lee had insight as to what would be
> requested on August 24.
>
Yes, Lee was informed well in advance, chances are when plans were first being
worked out to see if he could be used.
snip
> > >
> > > >From the above, we see that Lee's request for early dependency
> discharge
> > > did not speed up his ability to enter the USSR and obtain a one year
> > > Soviet visa. He was still "put on ice" at his hotel and made to wait.
> Wait
> > > for what? The US delegation to arrive offering to share technology as a
> > > trade for getting him in? We see the delegation's arrival was timed (by
> > > intention or by coincidence) to coincide with Oswald's discharge, which
> > > would have placed him in the USSR in late December, just in time to be
> > > granted his temporary Soviet visa - as he historically was.
> >
> > The above is a consideration, however not the best, the ""one year visa"
> > was not part of any consideration prior to Lee arriving......at least not
> > in my opinion. Lee's job was done the minute he crossed the boarder. He
> > only held the material as "it" crossed the boarder and he handed it off.
> >
>
> Would this be the "free sharing of ideas" Nixon spoke of?
Yep, based on the Soviets providing "Soviet Space Science" all the research on Sputnik.
>
> In my consideration, Lee is, at all points in time, attempting to enter
> the USSR (He only has funds for a "one way" trip) and the Russians are
> expecting him. Otherwise, they simply would have removed his access to
> razor blades and walked him to the nearest border. The Russians should
> have done exactly the opposite of what they did when Lee attempted
> suicide.
Exactly.......just look at the defection of Petrulli......just before Lee entered.
If they would not accept Petrulli, as a skilled metal worker, why take a suicidal
youth and give him a "skilled metal workers" job......that Petrulli was qualified
for. IT MAKES NO SENSE.
>
> IMO, there is an argument going on, inside the highest offices of the USSR
> on whether to let him in or not, with Krushev in favor and his opponents
> against. The arguments "against" required Lee's early (pre December)
> arrival in the USSR in order to wait for them to be overcome.
The KBG was the prime "objector" in all of this.
>
> My conclusion is that Lee is part of the "free exchange of ideas" deal
> made with the USSR in December,1959. Yet neither side could admit to Lee's
> role. On the US side, no one wants to admit that they gave the USSR
> American technology (possibly agriculture related from Iowa State
> University) and so a "defector" offers it, on the USSR side, no one wants
> to admit that they just allowed an American observor into their country
> (As evidenced by Lee's "The Kollective") in exchange for it. Opposition to
> Oswald's entry, had to be eliminated on the Soviet side by December, 1959
> if it was to correspond to the US offer to "share ideas" made that same
> month. If Oswald was not admitted in December, 1959, the US offer to
> "share ideas" would have been withdrawn by the December delegation. The
> Russians needed more time to get Lee cleared by December, 1959 - and
> requested the wheels for the trade be set in motion before December, 1959
> - necessitating Oswald's early discharge.
I believe I have stronger support for my view......but the basic considerations between
our views is still there.
>
> Poindexter will now personally see to it that Private Oswald's early
> discharge is approved, brushing aside the Aug 24 request for more
> information, and getting Lee out on the earliest possible date that still
> fit within the 90 day "window".
>
> Lee now heads over early and sits on ice at his Moscow hotel waiting for
> the December, 1959 deal to take place.
I believe that the deal has already been made......while Lee was on the boat
over. To me the deal had to be made before Lee crossed the line into the USSR.
The key here is the speed involved in getting Lee in. Afterwards means little to the
original plan.
>
> Lee sent a message, twice, to the US in December, 1959, stating not only
> that he had successfully gotten in, but where he was going.
>
Lee's first message that I can find is in the Synder letter of Oct 31.
> Lee's finances show he brought the exact amount of money needed to stay in
> the USSR into December, 1959. I don't think this is coincidence.
There are many conflicts dealing with the "funds".....but a minor thing in the overall
scale of things.
>
> > >
> > > If the delegation's arrival in December, 1959 was deliberately timed to
> > > coincide with Oswald's arrival then something happened that required Lee
> > > to arrive earlier than planned. There is nothing in Oswald's December
> > > discharge date that would have prevented him from being in Moscow in late
> > > December, renouncing his citizenship as the US delegations offers to share
> > > technology information. Therefore, the reason for Lee having to arrive
> > > earlier must have occurred on the Russian end.
> >
> > Lee could have bought a round trip ticket from L.A. or N.Y.C. for $30.00
> > on the new fly now pay later plan being pushed by TWA. and left at any
> > time. There was a purpose behind the boat trip. He would have only had
> > to travel about 24 hours, by flying and screwed the airlines......if he
> > was as presented.
>
> I think trans-Atlantic air travel was very, very expensive in 1959,
> although the USG certainly could have afforded to pay his airfare. I don't
> know why they didn't. I can see why they didn't let him take a military
> flight - a rather embarrassing eans for a planned "defector" to reach the
> USSR if revealed.
Lee might have flown military once over and off the ship.....I'm still working on
that and do have a plan to do more work in England next year. My son is there
now in the Air Force. Mike and I are going to get drunk at least one day while I'm
there.
>
> I see Lee as being put on a budget and given a destination.
See the added consideration on the $91.30.......I don't think anyone ever even
considered that "alternate consideration".
snip
> >
> > Synder was aware of Oswald.......I've mention the "address" issue in the
> > past, you can take it that I don't want to add it to this thread. A
> > member of the Supreme Soviet.....was prepared to "take care of Lee" I've
> > mentioned her as well in the past.
>
> Yes. And approval for Lee to stay in the USSR came from the "Supreme
> Soviet". In addition to "her" (Who couldn't be closer or more trusted to
> Krushev) I have also traced Leo Setyaev as being a participant to Lee's
> entry into the USSR and, later, his exit - on the Soviet side of the deal.
>
> Without these two, Lee would have been escorted to the nearest border and
> dumped.
>
If Lee was acting as presented in the offical version of events. The Soviets would
have no choice but to kick Lee out the day his 6 day visa expired.
>
> >
> >
> > > If this happened - And James and I will present evidence that both the
> USG
> > > and USSR were expecting Lee's "defection" - then Lee had to obtain an
> > > early discharge from the USMC.
> > >
> >
> > This is one of the areas where we agree on one point but disagree on
> > another. Both the USG and the USSR expected the "defection". It could not
> > have happened without the support of both.
>
> Absolutely. On the US side we have pointed to Poindexter's participation
> and Snyder's participation is far more provable than Poindexter's. Snyder
> left a path to follow a mile wide behind himself.
Snyder was used.......I really can't pinpoint if he "questioned the activities" or was
fully aware of what was going on around him. The USMC itself was really not a
major factor, Lee's activities in the USMC was basically over once he returned, from
Japan, his training and cover established, well before he was selected for this detail,
although his stay in Calif is of interest. Without a doubt Snyder did things that were
outside of normal operations concerning Lee. I don't think he did so because he was
stupid.....most likely he actions in brief were "By direction" and un questioned, he just
followed through with the instructions, which btw I believe Lee passed on to him.
snip
> > > August 27. It also ruled for early discharge, again, without waiting for
> > > the response to the Pic letter.
> > >
> >
> > The Pic data came in on 4 September, 1959
> >
>
> And, when considered necessary information on Aug 24, was no longer
> considered necessary on Aug 27 - A period of just THREE DAYS!
>
> The USMC did everything it had to do to get LHO out of the service, 90
> days early. And successfully accomplished same.
Yes, regardless if the paperwork was all in a row or not.....
snip
> > >
> > > Yet the board still ruled for Lee's early discharge.
> > >
> >
> > These are the "key documents" I mentioned above
> >
>
> Lee was drummed out on orders from above. He then wasted no time in
> heading for the USSR where Snyder was waiting for his arrival...
I don't know for sure if Snyder was informed so early in the game or not. I like
to give him the benifit of doubt, one that allows him to be "used" but not directly
involved.....I don't think he had all the details and in reality the less involved the
better.
>
>
> > >
> > > BTW, James provided most of the above discharge information in a
> 9/02/2001
> > > post. I want to give credit where credit is due. He has never mentioned
> > > the December 1959 formal US offer to "share ideas" with the USSR.
> > >
> > >
> >
> > That's the area we disagree on......but that's ok at this time. I'm not
> > sure many can handle the full details all at one time.
> >
> > jko
>
>
> Looking forward to hearing what operation you identify Lee as being
> involved in.
>
>
> For lurkers, JKO and I have reached similar (although not identical)
> conclusions using separate evidence. Due to the fact that we use separate
> evidence and due to differences of how we often view the same evidence, we
> don't always agree on the conclusions drawn (In fact, that's a rare
> occassion). What we did find was that the presented history of LHO is
> incorrect. Regardless of what you believe happened on 11/22/63, the idea
> that Oswald was acting "on his own" when he entered the US embassy in
> Moscow is flat out contradicted by the evidence.
That is correct........Lee could not have acted "on his own".
>
> We do not simply rely on "Poindexter approving Oswald's discharge" as the
> basis for our case. That connection is admittedly flimsy taken by itself.
> We had to start somewhere and JKO had posted on Oswald's discharge and
> this is where I happened to jump in. Poindexter's participation aside, we
> have shown that Lee's early discharge was aided by his superiors, who
> removed all obstacles for additional requested information which might
> slow down his discharge, with the result being that Lee obtained the
> earlest possible release from the USMC.
>
The discharge conflicts would never had surfaced.
> For Lee's part, we can see that his plan to obtain an early discharge
> originated sometime between March 19, 1959 and June 1, 1959 (Probably May
> IMO) and that he knew ALL the steps in the required process, beginning
> with his d eclaringhismotheradependentonJune1,1959.
>
> It will be interesting to see if JKO can demonstrate a link between the
> affidavits Lee collected in July and those requested in August.
>
see above.......there are two paper trails to follow "dependency" and "discharge".
Both because of the conflict of interest, counter each other and show that things
are not "kosher".......I honestly believe that the whole process of seperation was
"overkill" and not needed.....but then one has to consider other factors, of which there
are alot missing. We just do not have "access" without a full Congressional investigation
into key areas.
jko
>
>
> ::Clark::
>
From: "clark wilkins" <clwilkins@prodigy.net>
Newsgroups: alt.assassination.jfk
Subject: Re: The "early out" of Oswald
Date: 13 Oct 2004 22:05:58 -0400
Organization: Posted via Supernews, http://www.supernews.com
"James K. Olmstead" <Thpa2d@onecom.com> wrote in message
news:416d115b@mcadams.posc.mu.edu...
> Clark: I'm going to snip old stuff....let me know if you object.
No problems yet.
>
>
> "clark wilkins" <clwilkins@prodigy.net> wrote in message
news:10mojs8qq0e010@corp.supernews.com...
>
>
> > > >
> > > > Oswald's hurry to speed up his entry into the USSR coincided with
the
> > > > American Exposition in Moscow in 1959, which included Richard
Nixon's
> > > > kitchen debate on July 24, 1959 and Kruschev's visit to the US in
the
> > > > following September.
> > >
> > > Preperations on the part of Oswald, had to start prior to the July 24
> > > debate,
> >
> > Correct.
> >
> > >starting with the selection of Oswald for the task that required
> > > him to actually travel to the USSR, instead of Cuba. I strongly
suspect
> > > that Lee was earmarked to go to Cuba, since he was pulled out of
staying
> > > in Japan. Cuba was the most obvisious reason, that Lee was prevented
from
> > > staying in Japan, based on his activities once he returned. After the
fall
> > > of Batista, Cuban operationial needs shifted and Oswald was not the
right
> > > individual in this area. The "dependency grounds" offically started,
1
> > > June, 1959, with the "D" allotment, the "Q" allotment request started
20,
> > > July, 1959, so if these actions were part of any defection
plan.....things
> > > had to start no later then May, 1959.
> >
> > For early discharge - Yes.
> > But, on March 19, 1959 he applied for the spring term at AS college,
> > indicating he expected to be discharged in December, 1959 at that time.
>
> The school issue and all the retated connections is where Greg's work
comes in.
> Because of the quality of his research, I don't get into the details in
depth. His
> connections are in my opinion of interest and need to be explored in
greater detail.
>
I was going to bring them up next to show the pattern of how Lee was aided
in entering the USSR. Maybe we should send him an E mail and let him
present it?
>
> >
> > Thus, sometime around April-May, 1959 the need arose for Lee to obtain
an
> > early discharge and get to the USSR sooner than December, 1959.
> >
> > > I believe that things started
> > > before 20 February, 1959.
> >
> > Would this be when Lee took his Russian language test?
>
> It is around this time......off hand I'm not sure exactly....but could
look it up.
>
I'm pretty sure it's this time.
The AS college app demonstrates Lee was aware of his "Active Reserve"
status and need to be "in school" overseas. Since his early discharge
placed him in the "Inactive Reserve", no need to be "in school" existed
afer September, 1959.
He evidently had been expecting to be in the "Active Reserves" while in
the USSR - which again means that, at the time of his ASDC app, he was
expecting a December, 1959 discharge date and not an early discharge. I'll
refer to this as the "Stage 1" plan.
The early discharge represents a "change of plans" generated "top down".
I'll refer to this as the "Stage 2" plan.
> >
> > > The Knight and Childs Affidavits were both
> > > "made" 24 July, 1959. which were also prior to the one made by Mrs.
> > > Oswald.
> > >
> > > >
> > > > This followed the June 9, 1959 launching of the USS George
Washington,
> > the
> > > > first submarine to carry ballistic missiles. Kruschev saw this as a
> > threat
> > > > and made it clear to Nixon that war was now out of the question and
> > declared
> > > > his country was the "greater" military power but that he wanted to
> > negotiate
> > > > the removal of US bases from nearby foreign countries (The US had
some
> > 60
> > > > Jupiter missiles in Italy and Turkey). Nixon, meanwhile, was
interested
> > in
> > > > promoting the free exchange of ideas - particularly technology. They
> > used
> > > > television technology as the example (Oswald would go to work for a
> > radio
> > > > factory).
> > >
> > > The same factory made radar equipment for civilian and military use.
> >
> > I didn't know that.
> >
>
> The CIA did and the plant production was of interest. The U.S. military
was also
> interested in Minsk. The Soviets followed the German production
plan.....but after
> the war. The plan can best be understood by reading "Why England Slept"
by JFK.
>
By JFK?
LOL!
> > >
> > > >
> > > > Thus, as of July 24, 1959, the USSR was interested in reducing the
ABM
> > > > threat of the US and the US was interested in the "free sharing" of
> > ideas
> > > > (concerning, as we shall see, space programs). Krushev agreed to a
> > reciprocal
> > > > visit to